were: gender, age, wild or mutated BRAF, dose reductions, start date, adverse effects, progression and death date.The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyse PFS and OS. Statistical analysis was made with STATA.14. Results There were 14 men and 18 women receiving the combination. Median age was 59.4 years (range 34.4-82.7) and V600-BRAF was mutated in all patients.Most of the patients left the treatment, and only six are still receiving it. Patients that discontinued the treatment were 25 due to progression and two due to adverse effects. The median PFS is 7.38 months (95% CI: 5.51 to 11.44). During the study, 13 patients died. The median OS is 16.23 months (95% CI: 14.52 to not reached).Many adverse effects appeared with this combination and 38% of the patients had to reduce dose due to toxicity. Most common side effects were: fever, dermatologic effects (such as eczema, rash, oedemas), neurological toxicity (such as cephalea, confusion, dizziness, loss of memory), visual alterations (photophobia, visual reduction) and asthaenia. Conclusion Dabrafenib and trametinib are a good alternative for patients diagnosed with metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutation. Despite the toxicity, this is a serious conditioning for patients' life, and the results of PFS and OS are significant for patients without other options for years. More studies comparing dabrafenib and trametinib with other therapies in advanced melanoma, such as immunotherapy, are required to choose the best option for treating patients.

on the documentation available at the point-of-care ('Hospital list'), which in turn got validated via NEHR data ('NEHR list'), with the final step being a patient interview, formulating the final medication list ('BPMH list'). Primary outcome metrics were the frequency and types of medication discrepancies derived from the comparison of the aforementioned lists, including the former SoC. ResultsThe study included 100 patients (52% female, average age=62 years). 231 discrepancies were found between the NEHR list and the Hospital list (median=2; IQR=4), 64% of the patients being affected. The most common discrepancy was drug omission (65%) and incorrect daily dose (26%). There was an inconsistency between the BPMH list and the SoC in 90% of the patients (median=3; IQR=3), the most common errors being drug omission (41%) and incorrect daily dose (31%). Conclusion and RelevanceBased on these results, the NEHR can contribute to the compilation of a more prudent BPMH due to its more comprehensive data content. This methodology may, in turn, facilitate the prevention of multiple medication-related errors. These outcomes also underline the legitimacy of pharmacists' access to such national systems.

No abstract

Background and Importance Boosting generics is an indispensable approach in conducting cost-saving management in healthcare systems. In fact, generics can provide similar effectiveness and safety to originators but with lower costs and can increase market competition.

BackgroundDrug related problems (DRP) are defined as negative clinical outcomes resulting from pharmacotherapy, which do not achieve therapy objectives or produce undesirable effects. They can be necessity, safety or effectiveness DRP.PurposeTo measure the incidence of DRP (effectiveness and safety) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AE) treated with TNF antagonists (anti-TNF).Material and methodsA transversal, prospective, observational study was carried out in patients with AR and AE from the rheumatology unit in our hospital. Patients were selected by controlled randomisation (C4-study design pack), with voluntary study participation. Exclusion criteria: patients with anti-TNF for <3 months and <18 years. Pharmacotherapy follow-up (PFU) was conducted according to Dáder methodology-Universidad de Granada. All patients were interviewed twice a year. Variables collected: demographics (age, sex); clinical (diagnosis, time from diagnosis (TFD); and therapeutic: (previous and actual anti-TNF drug, initiation of use, adverse effects). Statistical study was conducted with Epidat 3.1-programme.Results85 patients were included. RA: mean age 49.7±6.62 years (83.9% women), TFD 11.5±9.2 years. AE: mean age 41.6±6 years (31% women), TFD 9.5±7.6 years. The table shows the DRP since PFU. Disease-anti-TNF No of patients Total No of DRP-effectiveness Effectiveness DRP per patient Total No of DRP-safety Safety DRP per patient RA-infliximab2590.490.4RA-etanercept1430.2181.3RA-adalimumab1750.3301.8AE-infliximab1990.590.5AE-etanercept530.6132.6AE-adalimumab530.6102 Anti-TNF No of patients Total No of DRP DRP per patient Infliximab44360.8Etanercept19371.9Adalimumab22482.2There were statistically significant differences when comparing total number of DRP with each drug (p=0.005), with a higher prevalence using adalimumab. There were 5 treatment changes undertaken between the 2 interviews: 2 because of safety DRP (optic neuritis in a patient with adalimumab; recurrent herpes virus infections in a patient with infliximab) and 2 because of ineffectiveness (1 patient with adalimumab; 1 patient with infliximab) and 1 because of the patient’s comorbidities.ConclusionInfliximab presented less DRP per patient. The data suggest a better safety and effectiveness profile for infliximab according to the number or related DRP compared with other anti-TNF.References and/or acknowledgementsFaus MJ. Programa Dáder. Pharm Care Esp2000;2:73–4.No conflict of interest